On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 3:27 AM Willem de Bruijn
<willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yan Zhai wrote:
> > > > -static inline bool netif_elide_gro(const struct net_device *dev)
> > > > +static inline bool netif_elide_gro(const struct sk_buff *skb)
> > > > {
> > > > - if (!(dev->features & NETIF_F_GRO) || dev->xdp_prog)
> > > > + if (!(skb->dev->features & NETIF_F_GRO) || skb->dev->xdp_prog)
> > > > return true;
> > > > +
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SKB_GRO_CONTROL
> > > > + return skb->gro_disabled;
> > > > +#else
> > > > return false;
> > > > +#endif
> > >
> > > Yet more branches in the hot path.
> > >
> > > Compile time configurability does not help, as that will be
> > > enabled by distros.
> > >
> > > For a fairly niche use case. Where functionality of GRO already
> > > works. So just a performance for a very rare case at the cost of a
> > > regression in the common case. A small regression perhaps, but death
> > > by a thousand cuts.
> > >
> >
> > I share your concern on operating on this hotpath. Will a
> > static_branch + sysctl make it less aggressive?
>
> That is always a possibility. But we have to use it judiciously,
> cannot add a sysctl for every branch.
>
> I'm still of the opinion that Paolo shared that this seems a lot of
> complexity for a fairly minor performance optimization for a rare
> case.
>
Actually combining the discussion in this thread, I think it would be
more than the corner cases that we encounter. Let me elaborate below.
> > Speaking of
> > performance, I'd hope this can give us more control so we can achieve
> > the best of two worlds: for TCP and some UDP traffic, we can enable
> > GRO, while for some other classes that we know GRO does no good or
> > even harm, let's disable GRO to save more cycles. The key observation
> > is that developers may already know which traffic is blessed by GRO,
> > but lack a way to realize it.
>
> Following up also on Daniel's point on using BPF as GRO engine. Even
> earlier I tried to add an option to selectively enable GRO protocols
> without BPF. Definitely worthwhile to be able to disable GRO handlers
> to reduce attack surface to bad input.
>
I was probably staring too hard at my own things, which is indeed a
corner case. But reducing the attack surface is indeed a good
motivation for this patch. I checked briefly with our DoS team today,
the DoS scenario will definitely benefit from skipping GRO, for
example on SYN/RST floods. XDP is our main weapon to drop attack
traffic today, but it does not always drop 100% of the floods, and
time by time it does need to fall back to iptables due to the delay of
XDP program assembly or the BPF limitation on analyzing the packet. I
did an ad hoc measurement just now on a mostly idle server, with
~1.3Mpps SYN flood concentrated on one CPU and dropped them early in
raw-PREROUTING. w/ GRO this would consume about 35-41% of the CPU
time, while w/o GRO the time dropped to 9-12%. This seems a pretty
significant breath room under heavy attacks.
But I am not sure I understand "BPF as GRO engine" here, it seems to
me that being able to disable GRO by XDP is already good enough. Any
more motivations to do more complex work here?
best
Yan
>
> >
> > best
> > Yan
>
>
